<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (3) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112412</link>
    <description>A consent or compromise order is not immune from challenge where the party signing it promptly repudiates the settlement and shows that assent was not free, informed and voluntary. The High Court noted that the recorded terms were incomplete, left several disputes unresolved, and appeared materially one-sided; in that setting, the usual bar against questioning a consent order did not apply. Principles governing compromise orders do not protect a document vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or a fundamental mistake as to its character and effect. The order was therefore open to interference and the challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:34:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112412</link>
      <description>A consent or compromise order is not immune from challenge where the party signing it promptly repudiates the settlement and shows that assent was not free, informed and voluntary. The High Court noted that the recorded terms were incomplete, left several disputes unresolved, and appeared materially one-sided; in that setting, the usual bar against questioning a consent order did not apply. Principles governing compromise orders do not protect a document vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or a fundamental mistake as to its character and effect. The order was therefore open to interference and the challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>